Things you think are 'wrong' with wolfy type crosses/new 'breeds'? Discussions

Yes, this wasn't directed at you LS. I hope your dog comes through fine.

I don't know whether they are exaggerated or not. That's why I'd like to see some facts and figures. I'm not, or have never made any statements saying there isn't a problem, just asked people to prove what they are saying when they state there is.

Some of the owners on here certainly have dogs with health problems, but does that mean there's a massive problem? I don't know, and I for one haven't been convinced so far, but then I've still got 6 more pages to catch up on.

Hello did you read my reply....

Yes at the moment he is healthy, but he is still young, and lots of the aforementioned diseases aren't even apparent till later.

When I have all the test results back, I will post them on this forum, I hope he has the all clear from the vets, but if he hasn't don't you dare say no harm done.

Also there is harm done already, I have to worry now about all the different problems in his line, and those are the ones we know about!

Can I also say, both Linda and Carol(TUS) are the only people who I would believe at the moment, as they really do work so hard on researching these dogs. They really do get alot of badmouthing from some people for telling the truth. Poor Carol has had to tell me stuff, I really didn't want to here, but I am grateful she did

I wish more people cared about the dogs health, instead of the glory of breeding the perfect wolfalike.


As for these dogs being special and having a deep connection, well I don't think there is anything mystical about it. My friend owns huskies and she has the same connection with hers, as I have with Mack, and he regulary plays with three Mals and they also have that same connection/bond with their owners. The "special connection" comes from the northern breeds that are in these dogs. Mals and Huskies are different, to say my Goldie, that is where these dogs get it from. Nothing mystical or spiritual

I don't, I just ask for those saying there is to justify their comments.

So how can you say there is a massive problem?

Totally agree with these two.

So if it's minimal, how are people justifying their statements that there are massive health problems? I have no problems with people quantifying their statements with "in my opinion", but to start with stating a possibility as fact is just wrong.

How can those 2 facts categorically state there are problems, it proves there's no reliable records, but one doesn't necessarily mean the other.

For the last time (I hope), I'm not saying there are no problems so I don't have to prove anything.. You on the other had are saying there are problems, so you should back up your words with facts.

And there are a few owners on here with problems with their dogs, out of how many owners, or dogs? And the key word from above is assumptions

Patch, I've said before I don't think anyone is arguing that there's not in-breeding going on, I'm certainly not. But what isn't clear is whether this is too much? Not someone's opinion, or moral judgment, but from an experts point of view.

And exactly, or roughly, how much damage is being caused by this in-breeding, sorry Moonstone saying x y & z are in my dogs line and he might have them isn't an actual problem.

And the facts are where? Still waiting for more than half a dozen genuine facts on this thread rather than opinions.

I think, not sure this is a long thread, but you also posted on this thread. But then selective reading is one of the specialties of some of the posters on here.

Unfortunately there are some who will say the same for JK. I say unfortunately because that leaves most people with no idea which one to believe.

These 'training tools' are not restricted to NIs, I've never used one, I don't think anyone on this board has said they've used one. I'd say it's an incompetent owner that needs one of these. Some idiots use a stick to beat the dog with to train them, is that the dogs fault? Don't those muppets on Dog Borstal use these tools? I've never seen a wolfy dog on there.

I'm sorry you worry about your dog's health, and I suppose that is 'harm done'. But to you not the dog. I too hope your dog gets the all clear.

I'm really trying to stay factual, and saying this is in my line and my dog might have it doesn't constitute as evidence towards a health problem in the wolfy dogs.

How on earth am I supposed to know that? I was not the breeder nor do I own any other pups bred from the same line.

Way hay, made it back to the top of the thread. Also noticed I've suddenly become a Dogsey Senior, cor.

So after 43 pages and over 400 posts what facts have we got:

1. No single org in control
2. doubious pedigrees
3. 1 definitive line of epilepsy
4. rescue centres selling entire dogs - still not sure if this is wrong

Still to be proved:

1. too much in-breeding - please quantify what too much is
2. massive health problems

Disproved:

1. agressive breeds

Not much further forward, out of the facts we have, only one is actually health related. The others may infer problems e.g. dubious pedigrees, but whilst it makes it difficult to track any bad lines, it doesn't actually mean there will be any problems.

Plus of the 4 facts 2 of them could be said about any breed. In fact can the all the points be directed to these new designer dogs such as the labrapoodle?

So how can you say there's health problems with these pups? I'm not intending to have a pop at you or anyone else, just asking you to backup any statements with some facts and/or figures.

Where did I say that there were health problems with the pups?? I said that I was shocked at the inbreeding on my boy's pedigree especially on his Dam's side.

Sorry, thought I'd read that, must have been someone else, I apologise.

I would be interested to know how confident you are of your dogs pedigree, given the amount of name changing that seems to have gone on?

Despite the the in-breeding, has your dog any health problems?

As most of the posts seem to be about too much in-breeding, does anyone have any scientific evidence stating how much is too much? Must admit I can't find anything that says a sire should only mate with one of his off-spring etc.

For info:

"The extent of inbreeding in purebred dogs and how this reduces their genetic variation is revealed in a new study by Imperial College London researchers. Inbreeding puts dogs at risk of birth defects and genetically inherited health problems."
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_15-8-2008-12-22-2

More for info:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2390636


"Dog breeds are required to conform to a breed standard, the pursuit of which often involves intensive inbreeding: the inbreeding effective population size of most breeds considered here is orders of magnitude smaller than the census size and exceeds 100 only in the Labrador retriever. This has adverse consequences in terms of loss of genetic variability and high prevalence of recessive genetic disorders. These features make purebred dogs attractive for the study of genetic disorders, but raise concerns about canine welfare.
Dog registration rules have been rigidly enforced only for ~50 years; prior to that occasional outcrossing was still possible. Anecdotal evidence suggests that loss of genetic variation and high levels of inbreeding have adverse consequences for canine health and fertility. We have found that the loss of genetic diversity is very high, with many breeds losing >90% of singleton variants in just six generations. On the basis of these results, we concur with Leroy et al. (2006) that remedial action to maintain or increase genetic diversity should now be a high priority in the interests of the health of purebred dogs. Possible remedial action includes limits on the use of popular sires, encouragement of matings across national and continental boundaries, and even the relaxation of breed rules to permit controlled outcrossing."

Many thanks LS.

A very interesting read, but that is saying any in-breeding is bad. If we follow that line of thinking then there can be no breed standards in any dog.

I find the following especially interesting:

That seems to make the in-breeding for wolfy dogs look tame in comparison. And these breeds have been going for hundreds of years.

Whilst it's a good read, it still doesn't answer the question, how much is too much?

More great stuff. But this seems to infer that once you get a breed registered with the KC, then you are in fact increasing the chances of health problems by continually in-breeding.

At least the wolfy dogs are still out-crossing, does that make them a shining example?